256 réponses à ce sujet

[metatheurgist]

Combat in DAO was based on magic. It had to be magical, because there's no other way to address the survivability issue that plagues all hero-worship fantasy stories. In the same way that supposed badass normal Batman is actually a superhuman by IRL standards (i.e. he's Captain America) the melee fighters in DAO had superpowers.

The difference is, while Cap and Bat both do ridiculous feats, they still work within their lore limitations. Cap doesn't have bursts of energy coming from his fists because he's not Iron Fist, he doesn't flatten opponents with a shout because he's not the Hulk. The characters have internal consistency. We might look at some outrageous stunt and think "...!" but we forgive it if the storytellers don't break the universe's rules. It's mark of great storytelling - it becomes epic instead of BS.

Just like it's a mark of great game design to make sure your warriors aren't doing things that only mages should be able to do. If you're just going to let that happen, why limit warriors at all? They should just be able to anything - throw bolts of lightning by rubbing their weapons together to create a static charge, blow down opponents by waving their shield, mind control enemies with sweet talk. It's just (bad) gameplay.

[TobyJake]

Giving the player full control over his own character, externally and internally. Also: let the character be firmly planted in the driver's seat. Never in the passenger's seat. Bioware seems more into telling a story to the player now, instead of letting the player feel like he is the story. Too much railroading, autodialogue, and an insane amount of limitations added to the character creation, is ruining the series. Feels more like Uncharted or something, than a roleplaying game. I have a sneaking suspicion some of the devs haven't even played an rpg before.

 

Rawgrim posted this^^

 

This totally sums it up for me. That is why modding gives you that freedom. Play the vanilla version first, then mod it how you would like.

No chest? Make one. Only 8 slots, make a toolbar!! You can always remove the mod if it displeases you!

[pasmith31]

Actually this brings up an interesting point, look at the new sport games with own player and career. I will go on to say they have better stats, attributes, changes and rpg system than the so called AAA rpgs these days. 

Really? I haven't played a sports games in many years it might be worth a try...

[Das Tentakel]

I may be well off here, but in my understanding lightly armoured troops were pretty much poor schmucks who couldn't afford the heavy stuff and so could only hope for the best (and would generally die pretty fast). The heavy armoured dudes weren't taunting anyone if they had a choice because from self-preservation point it was infinitely more useful if someone else was getting hit and killed instead of them. Even if that person happened to be on the same side.

This sort of "realism" doesn't sit well with game players though who expect things to be "fair" to their character(s) no matter what they play, and so the games have to come up with ways to provide that.

 

Erm...

 

Actually, heavily armed and armoured troops tended to be in the front row of the main battle formations. Lighter equipped troops were either mobile skirmishers or manned the rear ranks of the battle formations. In the case of the skirmishers, these could be agile, fit youngsters or professional mercenaries, depending on the time and place.

As for taunts and individual insults, they are more linked to 'individualistic' duels before the main battle that conferred personal glory on the victor, boosted morale among his comrades and weakened the resolve of the enemy.

 

RPG combat rarely had anything to do with realism, certainly not in the D&D and related pen & paper lineages and their cRPG derivatives. Not surprising, as it is descended from wargame rules, which are highly abstract and only make sense - somewhat - at a collective level.

There are a few RPG's (Harnmaster and a few others) that did this better, but none of them had any influence on cRPG's. Besides, things get very deadly real quick in these systems, so...not much fun in a cRPG anyway (or it would force, Gods forbid, the game to concentrate on roleplaying and story and exploration, rather than just killing things and looting their stuff).

[TMZuk]

Realism is a silly word in a CRPG.

 

Believability is a much better term. Can you suspend you disbelief while playing the game? Do you buy it, so to speak?

 

And there I am hard pressed with almost every game made to day.

 

First of all: KILL CRAFTING WITH FIRE!

 

It completely and utterly ruins one of the greatest concepts of old school RPGs: Finding Cool Stuff! And furthermore, I don't play a bloody smith! If I want to smith a knife, I go to my friends forge and spend a couple of DAYS there. It takes a little longer than a mouseclick, I am afraid. And, a knife is one thing, smithing a sword is far more difficult. They either break, or they bend or they weigh far to much. If you are an adventurer, you do not have neither the skill, nor the time to make a blade that is light, strong and flexible.

 

My ability to suspend my disbelief went out the window right there.

 

But, it's gets worse. Not only is my character a master weaponsmith. He also mines his own iron, melts ore, carve wood and work exotic materials. It is so bloody stupid. Get rid of it already! And all the stupid, pointless, utterly ridiculous fetch-quests associated with it.

 

I just started a new playthrough of Baldur's Gate/Baldur's Gate II. And while I marvel at the cleverness of the designers, the writers and the programmers, I at the same time ask my self: What went wrong? The only answer I can come up with is: MMOs happened.

[Wolven_Soul]

Yeah, they  had Jade empire as their action RPG.

Don't know how Dragon Age got picked for the 'Action' treatment.

Whilst Origins wasn't perfect, that was the platform to build off, somehow the platform get torn down and completely changed.

 

Ahhh Jade Empire, such a fantastic game.  So much I would love a sequel to that but...it would probably get ruined.  They would stick multi player in that no one wanted or change the combat away from the wonderful action that the first game had, or put in a terribly short main quest and fill the rest of it with boring fetch quest type things.  

 

Whoops, didn't realize how old this thread was, lol.  Sorry about that.

[TMZuk]

Me neither. My bad.

[Teddie Sage]

Don't necro... Mods hate that.

[In Exile]

Giving the player full control over his own character, externally and internally. Also: let the character be firmly planted in the driver's seat. Never in the passenger's seat. Bioware seems more into telling a story to the player now, instead of letting the player feel like he is the story. Too much railroading, autodialogue, and an insane amount of limitations added to the character creation, is ruining the series. Feels more like Uncharted or something, than a roleplaying game. I have a sneaking suspicion some of the devs haven't even played an rpg before.

 

Rawgrim posted this^^

 

This totally sums it up for me. That is why modding gives you that freedom. Play the vanilla version first, then mod it how you would like.

No chest? Make one. Only 8 slots, make a toolbar!! You can always remove the mod if it displeases you!

 

Except he's not, or rather, not exactly. I'm just replaying BG1 right now, and trying to be a Lawful Evil character, for example, is comically impossible. The game just isn't set up for it. Not to mention the way the dialogue system is, well, not really written to support most versions of characters (often, not even polite Lawful Good!). BG2 improved on BG1, but let's not go wild with how much Bioware catered to player freedom. Mostly they didn't have VO, which for some people is really important in making up their own content unsupported by the game proper. 

[Saphiron123]

The time has passed and the franchise changed with that, you either move on from the license or you enjoy what it became over the years.

I don't think that's what he's getting at though. DAI is empty, it's boring, the side quests are given a line or two of dialogue from wooden characters and it's nearly impossible to become invested. In short, outside of the VERY short main quest, it's bad storytelling.

It's a single player MMO. Contrast to the witcher 3 that put the same love and attention ton every side quest as DAI did the main story, and you seem another franchise out dragon-age inquisition. What made origins so amazing was I cared. I cared about the characters, I cared out the side quests, I cared about the world. DAI is just empty.

TW3 is everything Inquisition should have been, and this is coming from someone who only picked it up because DAI made me feel actual disappointment. You don't need a time limit, you need quests that impact the world, and a narrative you can care about both in and outside of the main questline. Prior to inquisition, bioware was THE company for that kind of experience.

Edit: Wow this thread is like 8 months old, lol.

[Rappeldrache]

Sorry for my english first.

 

 

Hmm .. I really loved DAI. For me it was the best RPG ever. For me, a game where I can't select my character "free" is not a real great RPG. Just my very personal taste!

 

My BIG problem with DAI:

"Haven Destroying" and "Finding Skyhold" was INCREDIBLE! I cryed  ...... JUST GREAT! Adamant was nice, Winterpalace was hey NEW. Wow what a great idea.

But there was a "emotion hole". I was missing a nother emotional moment like "After Haven". I made one area, and a nother area and about 4 areas more. And NOOOOO "RPG moment anymore". No stories with my companions anymore. And than I made "Hakkon" ... and no emotional moment (just a nother area more) ... and so one. At the end it was bit boring for me, because every emotional, cinematic moment in the main story or with the companions or the romance was gone.

 

THIS was my problem: Not enough cinematic, emotional moments (at the last 35 % of the game). After level 22 or after "you made 70 % of the game" there should be something like "After Haven". And one personal story for every companion more. AND: Little bit more possibilities in the romances (an a bit more scenes).

(OK and more haircuts and a few more options for skyhold).

 

But .... for me DAI was a GREAT RPG game. The greatest RPG I ever played (with some errors / holes).

 

 

I think it depends often WHAT taste you have and what RPG means to you.

I was a BIGGGGG Fan of Baldurs gate. ....wait: Here http://weidu.org/main.htmland look to the top of the side: http://weidu.org/Lump-Mods.html

I wrote this now more than puhh 12 or 13 years ago. Was a LOT of work.

I loved Baldurs Gate soooooooooo mutch. But: DAI is for me the best RPG ever, even better than Baldurs Gate. I don't want BG back. DAI is so mutch more RPG, for me.

 

 

PS: But: The DLC's where horrible until now ....

.

[Wolven_Soul]

 

 

 

Hmm .. I really loved DAI. For me it was the best RPG ever. For me, a game where I can't select my character "free" is not a real great RPG. Just my very personal taste!

 

 

 

 

Character creation being what you prefer is just fine, everyone has a right to their personal opinion and preference.  But to say that a game is not a great RPG just because it has a pre-set character is a little silly.  Both character creation and pre set characters have their place.  Character creation allows for more personal expression and customization.  Pre set characters allow for a stronger story because the character's history and personality is deeper and more developed.  You can tell better stories around such characters. 

 

The Witcher 3-Fantastic RPG with a pre-set character.

Final Fantasy 6-9-Great RPG's with pre-set characters.

Breath of Fire Series-Same thing

 

It's not just RPGs either.  There are a lot of fantastic games with pre-set characters.  Dishonored (though the story was simple, it was solid), Enslaved(vastly under rated game, it's criminal that it didn't get more attention), the new Tomb Raider, Bioshock.  I could go on.

 

It's not surprising that a lot of the best stories in video game history involve pre-set characters.  It get's a little old hearing so many people constantly going on about how character customization is so vastly superior to pre-set characters.  It's just not true.  It's also not true the other way around.  As I said, they both have their places.

[Rappeldrache]

Character creation being what you prefer is just fine, everyone has a right to their personal opinion and preference.  But to say that a game is not a great RPG just because it has a pre-set character is a little silly.

 

English is not my first english ... but isn't this a bit rude ... a bit insulting?

 

 

FOR ME, Roleplaying is "Playing my own selected role" and not: Playing a role of somebody else. This is my opinion and it's stamped from Pen&Paper roleplaying, yes. Playing "somebodys else" role is FOR ME not RPG. "Fable" was nice, but no roleplaying for me. 

 

I quote myself:

 

 

"I think it depends often WHAT taste you have and what RPG means to you."

 

 

 

 

PS: I felt two times bit "insulted" in this forum here. English is not my first language. Could be that it was just an error of mine, but ... both times it was from people who seem to love "The Whitcher" A LOT .

 

.

[pdusen]

1. A single game franchise won't kill CRPGs.
2. If CRPGs ever do die, it will be because no one is buying them anymore.

Out.

[Xetykins]

PS: I felt two times bit "insulted" in this forum here. English is not my first language. Could be that it was just an error of mine, but ... both times it was from people who seem to love "The Whitcher" A LOT .
 
.

You sure its "The Witcher" or DAO? Or maybe both?

[Rappeldrache]

You sure its "The Witcher" or DAO? Or maybe both?

 

Don't really understand the meaning of this message ....?

 

 

I just don't understand why the "Witcher" fans must insult DAI (and also often people who like DAI), here in the Bioware forum? This reminds me a bit how the World-of-Warcraft fans behaved ins other MMORPG-forums, especially when WoW was released .....

 

I ask myself if there are also DAI fans in the "Official Witcher forum" who insult "The Witcher" all the time ...? I read here a lot of messages and the DAI fans are normal (sometimes unfirendly and asholes, but normal in general). The Witcher fans here in the forum are OFTEN unpolite, aggressive and very fanatic. Just my personal impression.

 

It don't make a game better or cooler if the fans have sutch a childish behavior. My personal impression: The Witcher fans are mutch more younger as the DAI fans. And there are a lot of Witcher Fanboys- and Girls here, who have only one reason to be here: Insulting! And telling everbody how stupid DAI is (after their opinion).

 

Just my very personal impression.

 

.

[Xetykins]

Don't really understand the meaning of this message ....?


I just don't understand why the "Witcher" fans must insult DAI (and also often people who like DAI), here in the Bioware forum? This reminds me a bit how the World-of-Warcraft fans behaved ins other MMORPG-forums, especially when WoW was released .....

I ask myself if there are also DAI fans in the "Official Witcher forum" who insult "The Witcher" all the time ...? I read here a lot of messages and the DAI fans are normal (sometimes unfirendly and asholes, but normal in general). The Witcher fans here in the forum are OFTEN unpolite, aggressive and very fanatic. Just my personal impression.

It don't make a game better or cooler if the fans have sutch a childish behavior. My personal impression: The Witcher fans are mutch more younger as the DAI fans. And there are a lot of Witcher Fanboys- and Girls here, who have only one reason to be here: Insulting! And telling everbody how stupid DAI is (after their opinion).

Just my very personal impression.

.

Okey

[Rappeldrache]

@Xetykins

 

It's not ironic or an insult. I really don't understand.   *Hug*

[Wolven_Soul]

 

English is not my first english ... but isn't this a bit rude ... a bit insulting?

 

 

FOR ME, Roleplaying is "Playing my own selected role" and not: Playing a role of somebody else. This is my opinion and it's stamped from Pen&Paper roleplaying, yes. Playing "somebodys else" role is FOR ME not RPG. "Fable" was nice, but no roleplaying for me. 

 

I quote myself:

 

 

"I think it depends often WHAT taste you have and what RPG means to you."

 

 

 

 

PS: I felt two times bit "insulted" in this forum here. English is not my first language. Could be that it was just an error of mine, but ... both times it was from people who seem to love "The Whitcher" A LOT .

 

.

 

 

At what point was I being rude or insulting?  I only said that saying a game is not a great RPG just because it does not have character creation in it is silly to me.  Then I pointed out some great role playing games with pre-set characters.

 

The definition of a role playing video game where player controls the actions of a main character (or several adventuring party members) immersed in some well-defined world.  That is obviously a rather broad definition because by that, almost any game could be considered an RPG.  But that's just it, RPGs have become so wide and varied that you can't really define them with any one simple definition.

 

You certainly can't stick the genre in a box where it has to have character creation to be considered an RPG.  I mean, 'The Sims' has character creation, but I certainly would not consider it an RPG.  It's a simulation.  I am willing to bet that there are other games that have some form of character creation that are not RPGs.  None come to mind, but I wouldn't doubt it.  

 

I honestly can't think of any one thing that truly defines what an RPG is.  Every time I try to do so I can think of a game that I love, that is certainly an RPG, that doesn't quite fit the definition.  I almost typed one out just now, then I realized that 'The Legend of Zelda' did not fit those descriptions.  And that is certainly a fantastic RPG franchise.

 

When you say role playing the way that you do, then yes, a lot of games that are considered role playing games don't have role playing in it.  But the moment you throw game into that term, the variables widen quite a bit. 

[Wolven_Soul]

Don't really understand the meaning of this message ....?

 

 

I just don't understand why the "Witcher" fans must insult DAI (and also often people who like DAI), here in the Bioware forum? This reminds me a bit how the World-of-Warcraft fans behaved ins other MMORPG-forums, especially when WoW was released .....

 

I ask myself if there are also DAI fans in the "Official Witcher forum" who insult "The Witcher" all the time ...? I read here a lot of messages and the DAI fans are normal (sometimes unfirendly and asholes, but normal in general). The Witcher fans here in the forum are OFTEN unpolite, aggressive and very fanatic. Just my personal impression.

 

It don't make a game better or cooler if the fans have sutch a childish behavior. My personal impression: The Witcher fans are mutch more younger as the DAI fans. And there are a lot of Witcher Fanboys- and Girls here, who have only one reason to be here: Insulting! And telling everbody how stupid DAI is (after their opinion).

 

Just my very personal impression.

 

.

 

First off, I don't insult DA:I, I critisize it.  I love the franchise, but DA:I was a very disappointing game to me.  I want to see the franchise get back to the sorts of things that set it apart from others.  

 

Secondly, I was critsizing the game long before TW3 came out, long before I knew anything about the game at all.  I critisize the game because it's just not that great of a game.  

 

Thirdly, some of the DA:I fans here in the forums are every single bit as insulting and rude as some of The Witcher fans are.  I can point you right towards the Drinkquisition thread if you need evidence of that.  There are really rude people on both sides of the argument.  There are also really friendly people on both sides of the argument.

 

My criticisms of DA:I are so aggressive because I want the franchise to be great again.  

[Meredydd]

Yep, Bioware is definitely loosing their touch and/or motivation. But I would argue that it began with DA2 and just got worse from then on.

Observe:

 

[SmilesJA]

Yep, Bioware is definitely loosing their touch and/or motivation. But I would argue that it began with DA2 and just got worse from then on.

Observe:

 

 

Honestly I prefer the cinematic approach than the loads of dialogue that often repeats itself.

[Meredydd]

Honestly I prefer the cinematic approach than the loads of dialogue that often repeats itself.

 

The image was meant to illustrate lack of choices and RPG elements in recent Bioware games. I don't mind if it's more cinematic or not. They can still do that without taking away dialogue options.

[SmilesJA]

The image was meant to illustrate lack of choices and RPG elements in recent Bioware games. I don't mind if it's more cinematic or not. They can still do that without taking away dialogue options.

 

Meh I prefer prefer the voice acting and expressiveness of modern day RPG's than the tedious list of dialogue "choices".